Barack Obama, in his own words, on Islam and Christianity

obama-churchBarack Obama self-identifies as a Christian.  He seems, though, to find Christianity troubling.  Meanwhile, although he denies being a Muslim, he obviously finds it an emotionally and aesthetically attractive belief system.  Why do I say this?  Because someone was good enough to assemble a list of his statements about both religions, and to put them side-by-side:

Obama on Islam:

1. “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”

2. “The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer”

3. “We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world — including in my own country.”

4. “As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam.”

5. “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.”

6. “Islam has always been part of America”

7. “we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities”

8. “These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.”

9. “America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

10. “I made it clear that America is not – and will never be – at war with Islam.”

11. “Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.”

12. “So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed”

13. “In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.”

14. “Throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”

15. “Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and racial equality”

16. “The Holy Koran tells us, ‘O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.’”

17. “I look forward to hosting an Iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan here at the White House later this week, and wish you a blessed month.”

18. “We’ve seen those results in generations of Muslim immigrants – farmers and factory workers, helping to lay the railroads and build our cities, the Muslim innovators who helped build some of our highest skyscrapers and who helped unlock the secrets of our universe.”

19. “That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”

20. “I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story.”

Obama on Christianity:

1. “Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation”

2. “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.”

3. “Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith?”

4. “Even those who claim the Bible’s inerrancy make distinctions between Scriptural edicts, sensing that some passages – the Ten Commandments, say, or a belief in Christ’s divinity – are central to Christian faith, while others are more culturally specific and may be modified to accommodate modern life.”

5. “The American people intuitively understand this, which is why the majority of Catholics practice birth control and some of those opposed to gay marriage nevertheless are opposed to a Constitutional amendment to ban it. Religious leadership need not accept such wisdom in counseling their flocks, but they should recognize this wisdom in their politics.”

6. From Obama’s book, The Audacity of Hope: “I am not willing to have the state deny American citizens a civil union that confers equivalent rights on such basic matters as hospital visitation or health insurance coverage simply because the people they love are of the same sex—nor am I willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount.”

7. Obama’s response when asked what his definition of sin is: “Being out of alignment with my values.”

8. “If all it took was someone proclaiming I believe Jesus Christ and that he died for my sins, and that was all there was to it, people wouldn’t have to keep coming to church, would they.”

9. “This is something that I’m sure I’d have serious debates with my fellow Christians about. I think that the difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and prostelytize. There’s the belief, certainly in some quarters, that people haven’t embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior that they’re going to hell.”

10. “I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell. I can’t imagine that my God would allow some little Hindu kid in India who never interacts with the Christian faith to somehow burn for all eternity. That’s just not part of my religious makeup.”

11. “I don’t presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. But I feel very strongly that whether the reward is in the here and now or in the hereafter, the aligning myself to my faith and my values is a good thing.”

12. “I’ve said this before, and I know this raises questions in the minds of some evangelicals. I do not believe that my mother, who never formally embraced Christianity as far as I know … I do not believe she went to hell.”

13. “Those opposed to abortion cannot simply invoke God’s will–they have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths.”

14. On his support for civil unions for gay couples: “If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount.”

15. “You got into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

16. “In our household, the Bible, the Koran and the Bhagavad Gita sat on the shelf alongside books of Greek and Norse and African mythology”

17. “On Easter or Christmas Day, my mother might drag me to church, just as she dragged me to the Buddhist temple, the Chinese New Year celebration, the Shinto shrine, and ancient Hawaiian burial sites.”

18. “We have Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, and their own path to grace is one that we have to revere and respect as much as our own”

19. “All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of the three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra— (applause) — as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, peace be upon them, joined in prayer. (Applause.)”

20. “I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.”

The list doesn’t mean that Obama isn’t a troubled, doubting Christian, or that he’s a closet Muslim.  As Queen Elizabeth I said, it’s not up to us to make windows into men’s souls. But the list of those statements, all of which I remember him making in real-time, strongly indicate that, whatever his actual beliefs, Obama’s affinity (which is different from his faith) seems to hew towards Islam, rather than to the Judeo-Christianity that has for so long underpinned our nation.

Currently, you can find the list here and here.  I found it at American Thinker.

 

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. says

    The Left is attracted to Islam not because they share ideological foundations. Blacks aren’t attracted to the homos in the gov welfare center due to a shared belief in homosexuality, either.
     
    The Left is allied with Islam because both have the same kind of society, a top down, totalitarian, society. Thus they share enemies. They think they’ll decide which of their totalitarian societies will be the winner at the end of it all, and each side thinks it’ll be theirs.
    Shades of Stalin and Hitler over Poland.
     

  2. Caped Crusader says

    As to Christianity, I believe that is what is known in common parlance as, “being damned by faint praise”. And most of what he finds wrong with Christianity is present in spades in Islam, but he chooses to ignore it.

  3. Texan99 says

    Part of what I see here is the difference in attitude to a religion no one is urging him to comply with at all closely.  Islam that’s mostly an exotic faith in other countries can be viewed through rose-colored glasses.  Christianity with adherents right here who are urging laws to prevent behavior that’s important to him and his friends, like gay marriage and abortion, is another matter:  it has to be picked apart and viewed skeptically.  He’d sing a different tune if someone were trying to make his female cronies wear burkas, or at least, I hope so.

    • Eidolon says

      There’s definitely a victimhood poker aspect to this. The Muslims are poorer than Christians, therefore they must be oppressed by the Christians, therefore whatever criticisms Christians (or sympathizers with either Christianity or Western culture such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali) have of them must be invalid, because all criticisms by Oppressors of Oppressed are inherently invalid.
       
      It’s interesting as well how small groups of Oppressors living in Oppressed countries and being themselves actually oppressed, as opposed to theoretically oppressed (e.g. Christians throughout the Middle East), are still identified as Oppressors and ignored because of their group membership. I suppose a Christian can never be truly wronged by a Muslim as long as Christians in general are more successful than Muslims in general, just like a rich person can never truly be wronged by a poor person.

      It hurts my brain to even try to think like they do.

  4. Eidolon says

    To answer an annoying and recurrent criticism of Judaism, “slavery” in Leviticus is not the same thing as, e.g., slavery as practiced in the American South. My wife and I have been reading through the whole Bible, something that would be a great thing for a person such as Obama who seems to think himself a Biblical scholar to do. (I can’t get over the “brother’s keeper” thing. He even created a “My Brother’s Keeper Initiative.” He honestly doesn’t seem to know what the context was to the only Biblical reference to being one’s brother’s keeper, i.e. that it was a sarcastic reference by a murderer and not a command in any sense.) It’s actually an interesting and clever social solution.
     
    What’s referred to as “slavery” in Leviticus is a system for dealing with the fact that a) some people are irresponsible and need to be punished, but b) the Jews were a nomadic people who couldn’t have useless people around. In a society such as ours which exists on fixed territory and with an abundance of food, a relative few people can guard a relatively large number in a jail and they can be fed. However, the Jews in Leviticus didn’t have the manpower, time, food, or money to build and maintain a jail system. They really couldn’t afford to have people eating but not producing, being a nomadic people in a desert. Not only would the jailed people be unproductive, they would make others unproductive as well.
     
    To solve this problem, an well-designed system was developed. First, many crimes were punished via the death penalty. This both eliminated the need for jailing and emphasized the seriousness of these crimes. Second, crimes that could not effectively be solved via payment, sacrifice, and ritual (i.e. if the guilty party had nothing to repay the other person with) then the guilty party was made a “slave,” which was a cross between an indentured servant and a slave as we typically think of it. The master could beat the slave, but was discouraged from injuring or killing him and would have to pay if he actually killed the slave. This sounds harsh, but at the same time the slave’s work was needed for the society to survive. Hurting slaves was discouraged but allowed, since it would surely be required in some cases to get the slave to work. The emphasis was on the slave being productive, not on the master’s ownership or domination of the slave. If a slave worked diligently he could expect to be treated well.
     
    Slaves were released either when they had repaid their debt or at festivals, held at (I think) 7 year intervals, whichever came first. Many slaves continued to work for their former masters for pay after being freed due to the decent treatment they received. These were fellow Jews, after all, and there was no animus involved in the arrangement. It was essentially a different version of debtor’s prison, fitting the needs of the society at the time.
     
    It’s easy to see a scary word like “slavery” and allow ourselves to assume things into the word. However, many words and concepts had different meanings in different times and places and we need to understand what they meant to the people who used them when they were written so we know what we’re talking about. Everything I’ve just described is in the Old Testament, i.e. in the section of the Bible he was criticizing, but I suspect has not read.
     
    Obama demonstrates some real ignorance of the subject (big surprise). I’m really starting to believe the theory that nobody ever wanted to tell him he was ignorant or foolish about anything, so he honestly believes his shallow understanding to be real expertise on every subject.

    • Caped Crusader says

      Very interesting. Could you site some Bible verses and references verifying this explanation of slavery as you have described, or is this just someones opinion?

      • Eidolon says

        Here’s what I was thinking of from Deuteronomy 15:
        Freeing Servants
        12 If any of your people—Hebrew men or women—sell themselves to you and serve you six years, in the seventh year you must let them go free. 13 And when you release them, do not send them away empty-handed. 14 Supply them liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to them as the Lord your God has blessed you. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command today.
        16 But if your servant says to you, “I do not want to leave you,” because he loves you and your family and is well off with you, 17 then take an awl and push it through his earlobe into the door, and he will become your servant for life. Do the same for your female servant.
        18 Do not consider it a hardship to set your servant free, because their service to you these six years has been worth twice as much as that of a hired hand. And the Lord your God will bless you in everything you do.

        • says

          Slavery during that time, Rome/Greek civilization, was like that. The same was true for British slavery.
           
          That kind of slavery is easy to ban. The Democrat controlled institution of slavery was a completely different issue.

          • MacG says

            Even in America…to start. Below is a letter to the editor I wrote which was ‘some reason’ not published:
            A previous letter writer wrote “Another form of redistribution that is part of American history from the very beginning has to do with slavery, which began in this country around 1619 when some of our Virginia founding fathers brought to our shores Africans to work (as slaves)…”  What is lesser known is that prior to 1654 the form of slavery which the writer referenced was not the custom.  Rather the 13 Colonies practiced indentured servitude.  This was a contractual arrangement of labor for room, board, and skill building (primarily farming) at the end of which they were set free.  Customarily those servants received enough land and tools for a leg up towards self sustenance.  Incidentally, nearly 50% of all white emigrants from Europe were indentured servants as well.
             
            On completion of his contract an Angolan African man named Anthony Jackson began tobacco farming and later became the ‘owner’ by court order of the first for-life African slave, John Casor.  I believe the unintended consequence of this case was the foundation for the proliferation of for-life slaves which Mr. Silberstein references.  Some 300,000 Northern whites would later shed their blood to correct that.
             
            Through those and the following years many bad things have been done to many Africans by whites no doubt but history and current events are fuller than what our emotive sound byte society typically allows.  Today black on black crime is more common than white on black, but I hear that ‘snitches get stitches’ so it’s difficult to find justice for those black victims.  But the minute a white guy perpetuates evil on a black guy all of a sudden it is a race thing instead of a violence thing.  It’s us against them.  The violent are the enemy.  Violence is the issue.  Period. 
             
             
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist) 
             
             
            How about replacing the race pie chart and its many slivers to one with just two slices: Civil and Uncivil.  It’s the civil people against the violent ones.  That’s a big part of my worldview, if you’re of the character that stands against the violent ones then we are on the same team, no color test required.  The race issues in America will continue as long as superficial skin color is the dominant facet of how we view others and who we make ourselves out to be.

          • says

            The idea that violence belongs to only one side is part of the problem. Similar to the idea that only the police and government have the right to armed bodyguards and protection, while everybody else must be serfs in order to be obedient citizens.

    • Kathy from Kansas says

      Re: Eidolon’s comment posted at 1:41 p.m.:
      So much damage has been done over the centuries by people misreading and misquoting the Bible. Thank you so much for providing crucial background/context on the issue of slavery. We need to get this information out to people!
      I have been doing a lot of reading about the Civil War recently, including a number of the slave narratives. Slavery in America was nothing like the slavery of the Bible. As you point out, Biblical slavery was not race-based in any way. Neither were slaves bought and sold as chattel. Finally, one of the most horrendous things about American slavery was the way it broke up families. Husbands and wives were sold off separately, and children were sold separately from their mothers even at very young ages, never to see each other again. Even worse, many of those children were conceived in rape by white masters. What really, really blows my mind about American slavery more than anything else is the way these white slaveowners impregnated their female slaves, then enslaved their own children!! Oftentimes, it was their wives who forced the sale of these children, to get those little mulatto “reminders” of their husband’s crimes out of their own sight. 
      Not one bit of that sick system is sanctioned, or even mentioned, in the Bible, and when people casually compare the two, it just makes me see red. Thank you, Eidolon, for illuminating some things.

  5. Libby says

    My favorite is his overuse of “my brother’s keeper” passage in the bible. He uses this to justify every darn government entitlement as well as amnesty. Even recently named a program after it. It must be in some Re-interpreting Bible Verses to Support Socialism guidebook. Maybe someone who’s paid more attention in church can explain it to me, but wasn’t Cain being sarcastic when he asked “Am I my brother’s keeper?”

    • Eidolon says

      I thought of that as well. The only reference to “brother’s keeper” in the Bible is Cain’s sarcastic answer when God asks him where his brother, whom he had just murdered, was. At no point does the Bible suggest that anyone is actually responsible for watching over his brother. An actual “brother’s keeper” initiative might involve minding one’s own business and staying out of other people’s way.

    • Libby says

      He “takes care” of his (now deceased) auntie and uncle by making the taxpayers fund their illegal entitlements, since neither of them have been in the U.S. legally, right?
       

  6. Libby says

    Let’s not forget Obama’s recent Easter Prayer Breakfast move of asking controversial Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson to deliver the closing prayer. Can you imagine him ever asking a gay imam (or whatever passes as controversial in that community) to deliver a prayer during the WH Ramadan celebration?

  7. Eidolon says

    Here’s what I was thinking of from Exodus:

    Exodus 21
    New International Version (NIV)

    21 “These are the laws you are to set before them:
    Hebrew Servants
    2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.
    5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges.[a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.
    7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,[b] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.
     
    Note that “redemption” allowed a person to be freed at I believe any time via a payment and/or sacrifice.
     
    20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
    26 “An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.
     
    28 “If a bull gores a man or woman to death, the bull is to be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible. 32 If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels[f] of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull is to be stoned to death.
     
    Apparently Hebrew slavery was different than the slavery of others. Hebrews could purchase slaves from the surrounding peoples, but not other Hebrews in the same sense:
     

    Leviticus 25:39
    New International Version (NIV)

     

    39 “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves.
    42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves.
    44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
     
    I was remembering wrong a bit. Hebrew slavery was typically not a punishment but a way for poor people to be fed and housed by richer people, and to be paid. The master had a lot of control over the slave but also had various obligations to him. Many chose to stay slaves because they enjoyed working for their master and appreciated the steady source of food and shelter. There were various rules for the wellbeing of slaves of either type.
     

    Deuteronomy 23:15
    New International Version (NIV)

    Miscellaneous Laws
    15 If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master.
     
    Other sources indicate that slaves could own property, testify in court, and generally were considered citizens. I don’t recall if that’s written in the Old Testament itself, but there’s not really any stigma associated with slaves. They are property of the master in the same way that wives and daughters were the property of husbands and fathers respectively, which implied nothing negative, it was simply a particular relationship.

  8. MacG says

    “1. “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam””
    Imagine if he had said this:
    “The future must not belong to those who slander the God of Israel”
    OR being Christian and all
    “The future must not belong to those who slander Jesus Christ.”
    We could watch the babbling heads on MSNBC pop and we would nearly run out of internet ink (as hard as that would be to do;) )

  9. Spartacus says

    “Obama’s response when asked what his definition of sin is: ‘Being out of alignment with my values.'”
     
    I’m still struggling to understand how he could have gotten away with saying something like this: logically interpreted, he is flatly claiming to be God.  And when someone claims to be God, there are really only two good choices:  1) worship Him: don’t vote for Him, but literally fall on your knees and give your life to Him; or  2) take him out to a nice, peaceful facility in the countryside with dedicated doctors, kind nurses, and really strong meds.  But… shrug, vote for him, and leave him in charge of a couple thousand nuclear warheads?  Nooooooooo!!!  And the fact that he hasn’t even had to walk this one back — think about that! — shows that he isn’t the only stark, raving lunatic!  They’ve taken over the asylum!

    • says

      What did you think the whole election of 2008 was? It was their Messiah’s graduation party.
       
      They were serious. It wasn’t merely political theater. They were Serious. And I mean Serious. In a way people cannot understand with mere logick.

    • Caped Crusader says

      You are a smart guy. Cannot believe you did not know Obama believes he is god, for he has always been told just that. Surely you know the media worships him and he is infallible, for he is worshiped, adored, never questioned, and his brilliant utterances are reported to all who will listen as the gospel.

    • Spartacus says

      But… but…  OK, you guys are right.  Cannot and would not deny that.  But… it just seemed to me that the whole “messianic” bit was sort of typified by that Newsweak editor who said something like, “he’s kind of a god.”  Kind of.  Sort of.  Similarity, but not exact equivalence or literal identity.  Seemed like extreme enthusiasm plus a little dramatic license and hyperbole.
       
      But it’s a bit… unusual… for an American politician to say with a straight face and no known history of deadpan humor, “Sin?  I define sin.”  He might as well say, “Yo, baby!  I am the I AM!  The Alpha and the Obama!  The Way and the Lie and the Death!  (And I’m really good at killing people.)  No one comes to the White House except through Me!  And no one comes to Me except through The Valerie!  Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and render unto God what is God’s!  And since I am Caesar and I am God, just render it all unto Me!”
       
      So I guess I gave more benefit of the doubt to these folks than was warranted.  And having remembered a news story from Christmas 2011 or 2012, wherein the White House Christmas Tree was decorated with ornaments celebrating Barack (“’tis the reason for the season”), I was going to link that, but in searching, quickly bogged down in links to sites where you can buy… Obama Christmas ornaments.  Crikey.

      • says

        The Left is like a cra*y pc game that bugs out all the time, with a hard drive that keeps BSOD every hour or so, deleting the last 30 minutes of data each time.
         
        So they’re always on the verge of a system crash and reformat, whenever they talk about divine power. They’re talking about divine power, but they forget it or the data is wiped in a crash.
        So the system restarts, shuts down, restarts, shuts down, as they have a single a conversation.
        Reminds me of Kill la Kill, where clothes are clothes and people are people, and the two shall never become One, nor should the people be ruled by the Clothes.
         

    • Mike Devx says

      Obama replied that sin is “Being out of alignment with my values.’”
       
      He could have said, “Being out of alignment with God”, or “being out of alignment with the Bible”.  Both of those responses would be so vague as to be perfectly in alignment with any politician’s values.  So why didn’t he?
       
      I think a number of Christians view their Christianity as a set of personal beliefs and rules “inspired” by the Bible and their sense of God.  I think of it as the “Social Gospel” version of Christianity.  This set of beliefs and rules can change – and do change – practically day by day.  Yesterday, activism on global warming was at the forefront of good Christianity; today it is female wage inequality.  Tomorrow it will be whatever social agenda is being promoted tomorrow.  Of course, since the Democrat Party and most media outlets coordinate on these things, it means these “Christians” are being led around by the nose, but oh well.
       
      Values, if they’re not based on something rather permanent, will shift with the shifting sands.
       
      The key concept is that God and the Bible are rather permanent, whereas one’s “values” shift day to day.  Are you out of alignment with your values?  Well, just be patient and wait a day.  Or a few hours. Wait  a little bit for your values to change!  Then you are in sin no more!
       
      Was Obama in sin in 2011 when he spoke against gay marriage?  Was Obama in sin in 2013 when he spoke in favor of gay marriage?  This reliance on the concept of sin as being against values, rather than God or the Bible, implies an avoidance of permanence and judgment.  It also seems extraordinarily shallow to me.  But we here in Book’s domain don’t exactly see Obama as a deep thinker, so shallow is as shallow does.
       
      Finally, this seems to tie into Obama’s affinity with Islam.  Allah is about as unknowable and distant a Creator as you’ll find in a major religion.  Allah controls *everything*, and you as a believer are to simply accept everything around you as Allah’s will.  Without question, and without thought.   In most Christian thought, God’s universe is ordered and follows natural law – and a miracle occurs when God intervenes and violates his own natural order.  The Sun rises in the east by the natural order of God’s universe.  But ask a classic Muslim why the Sun rises in the east, and he would say it is due to Allah’s will.  Allah could simply will the sun to rise in the west, and lo it would happen, and there is no sense of any violation of natural order in this concept.  *Everything* is due solely to Allah’s will.  
       
      Obama is a profoundly uncurious man.  At some point in the past, he decided he already knew enough, and would never need to learn anything else ever again.   I see the unknowable, inscrutable non-scientific Allah as being very appealing to Obama.
       

      • says

        Btw, you may have told me this before, but are you the same MikeD that comments at Grim or Villainous Company?
         
        I quoted MikeD’s comments from a few years ago concerning totalitarian regimes being installed in America, but it wasn’t clear to me whether Mike Devx was claiming those as having been written by Devx too.

        • Mike Devx says

          Ymar, I might have commented over at VillianousCompany once or twice years ago.  Used to visit them frequently back then, liked the libertarian vibe.  I have visited Grim a few times, but I don’t remember ever leaving a comment there.  If I left comments anywhere, it would also have been as MikeDevx, not MikeD.

    • Libby says

      Re: Sin is being out of alignment with his values – Obama said this in a 2004 interview with a religion reporter where some of the other quotes come from (looked it up out of curiosity). What’s weird about all of his responses is that they center around himself, how he lives his life and interacts with his family. There’s nothing about his interaction with God, such as prayer, learning/understanding and carrying out God’s will, being the recipient of  God’s grace and the forgiveness of sins. The concept of sin entails an ongoing cycle – people sin, repent, ask forgiveness, then sin again –  because all men are sinners. Who judges Obama when he sins? Who forgives him? When?
      I don’t claim to be a bible expert or even a super Christian (so forgive my clumsy analysis in the previous paragraph), but I don’t recall ever hearing anyone at church speak about their faith the way that Obama does in that interview. Like everything else, it is detached and centers on himself and on his own actions.
      http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37310
      Here’s another example:
      Asked who Jesus is to him, Obama answered, “Jesus is an historical figure for me, and he’s also a bridge between God and man, in the Christian faith, and one that I think is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher. And he’s also a wonderful teacher. I think it’s important for all of us, of whatever faith, to have teachers in the flesh and also teachers in history.”
      Sounds more like how an atheist professor would describe the Christian faith than someone who believes Jesus was the son of God who died for our sins. The Nicene Creed has more depth than Obama’s Christian beliefs as described in this interview.

  10. Charles Martel says

    It is pretty apparent that Barack Obama is no more of a Christian than his mentor, Jeremiah Wright, who is a classic case of a Muslim practicing taqiyya, the dispensation that allows Muslims to lie outright to their non-Muslim neighbors if doing so advances the cause of Islam. (Wright faked a conversion to Christianity.)
     
    Keep in mind, too, that Islam does not require an initiation ceremony to join it, such as baptism in Christianity, or Judaism’s lengthy conversion process. One simply recites the Shahada three times: “There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger.” Badda bing, badda boom, you’re in. I doubt it would ever have been all that hard for The Gelding to whisper the Shahada while he was lining up a putt.

  11. says

    For all those that wish to fight against slavery, in the form as it is popularly known, I urge them to read this new research I’ve found.
     
    http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/the-democrat-institution-of-slavery/
     
    Many things are explained and tied together (connecting the dots). Why did the US need a civil war to get rid of slavery? Why did it take so long for Southerners to admit they could vote for a Republican like Reagan? Why is the Democrat party the way it is now?
    My instinct and intuition for the right path was correct. It was, indeed, a Democrat thing.

  12. says

    The good thing that resulted from people’s reaction to Hussein is that Americans have learned to hate. Not the institutionalized hatred the oligarchy uses to commend obedience, but real individual hatred, of their own will, not because their family told them so, not because their society told them so, and not because the Law demanded it be so.
     
    Because Americans now feel true hatred in their hearts against one Leftist, they can now broaden the scope of their intellectual logick to other parts of the LEft and begin connecting the dots. This is a sea change, a paradigm shift. And without Hussein, it may have taken 40 years before Americans awakened to any significant level of pain or hate.

  13. Spartacus says

    You guys mind if I try a little blending and synthesis here?
     
    Until now, I’ve always dismissed the idea that Barack might actually be a Muslim.  Hard-core Islamophile?  Definitely.  Actual, observant, pious Muslim?  No.  “Islam” is Arabic for “submission,” and the cool-cat leader of the Choom Gang doesn’t dig submission to anyone (except Michelle, Valerie, and foreign heads of state with forceful personalities, but that’s only because they’re scary, not because he really digs it).
     
    But the Great Frank points out the ease of “conversion” to Islam, and the ambiguity and deception with which one can live as a “Muslim.”  The image of Barack as a sincere truth-seeker embracing The Prophet and humbly dedicating his life to Allah doesn’t work, but the image of a rebellious adolescent adhering to a counterweight to the dominant culture (into which he doesn’t feel welcome) fits nicely.  His career in politics exempts him, through taqiyya, from active participation in a mosque (which jives well with his laziness) and the lifestyle accountability that would go with that (which jives well with his narcissistic ego).
     
    Similarly, while his “Christianity” wouldn’t pass the first sniff test in my church (hence my reaction), Devx provides a good and necessary reminder that some churches take a much more… “flexible”… view of the Bible.  Admonished by a friendly and helpful soul one day in South Chicago twenty-some years ago that he would never get any traction there as a community organizer if he didn’t join one of three churches, Barack muttered, “I know… I know.”  Shortly thereafter, he walked into Jeremiah Wright’s “church,” and we may imagine that after he signed in and gave the girl at the front desk $20, he considered himself a card-carrying Christian (later to upgrade himself to “Basically God.”)
     
    So in his fuzzy and muddled mind without sharp distinctions, he holds the Muslim card and the Christian card, either or both to be played when convenient, with no further reflection or responsibility necessary on his part.  A hypothesis, but one that fits the data presented.

  14. Texan99 says

    That’s where I come out.  He’s a secularist and, in religious terms, primarily a contrarian/opportunist.  Whatever religion is inconveniencing him spurs him to adopt a vaguely approving stance towards some competing religion–but no religion is going to make him do anything that doesn’t suit his real purposes, which have to do with power, prestige, and control.  He may also have some notions of social fairness and charity, as long as he can make other people pay to implement them, but I take them to stem from inchoate personal resentments of exclusion from the in-crowd rather than from abstract principles.  He’s perfectly willing to play privileged “insider” against pariahs whenever he can get away with it.  If he has any convictions about personal probity or truthfulness, I can’t detect them.

Trackbacks

  1. […] One of my daily visits in the blogosphere is my friend Bookworm at Bookworm Room.  Not only is she a fine writer, her past provides a unique perspective on cultural issues. She is, you see, a recovering progressive, and more, she lives in one of the most progressive places on the planet: Marin, California. Her thoughts often provoke my own, as did a significant article comparing the words of Barack Obama on Christianity and Islam.  […]

Leave a Reply